Bansavalinama on Dasam Granth (Translation)

[BhagatSingh]

Regarding sihari etc I think we should be carefull in applying a relatively modern forms of spellings and grammar to these old texts. They were written long before Punjabi grammar was standardised.

Not true. The sihari is an old form of grammar (used especially in poems because it can make rhyming and rhythm a lot easier). You cannot understand Guru Granth Sahib without understanding the rules of sihari and aonkarh.

The sihari and aokarh aren't just grammer either. They are actually pronounced.
E.g.
ਹਰਿ ਸਤਿ ਕਰਿ ਕਵਿ
Har Sat Kar Kav ☓
Hari Satye Kare Kavi ✓

Proper understanding of meaning comes from proper pronunciation and reading.

But if it was the Guru performing an action in the past, would'n it say "japu ate anandu rasni keeta uchaar." Just as in the other verbs of an action taking place they are given in past tense (Bachan keeta, kard ditee etc).

He is using both past and present. There's a word for that, which escapes me.

ਕਰਿ is ਕਰਿਹ in this sentence. And ਕਰਿਹ is old punjabi, in modern Punjabi it would be ਕਰ ਰਿਹਾ or in case of a respectful individual, elder - ਕਰ ਰਹੇ


So what would this sentence read like had it been written in modern punjabi as a statement (as opposed to a poem).

ਜਪੁ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਰਸਨੀਂ ਕਰਿ ਉਚਾਰੁ - old punjabi, poem
V
ਜਪੁ ਜੀ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਰਸਨੀਂ ਕਰ ਰਹੇ ਉਚਾਰ (ਰਸਨੀਂ is ਰਸਨਾ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ)
V
ਜਪੁ ਜੀ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੂੰ ਰਸਨਾ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਉਚਾਰ ਰਹੇ ਸਨ - modernpunjabi, sentence

Edit:
On second thought, It seems ਕਰਿ is ਕਰ ਕੇ in both sentences.

ਕਟੋਰਾਂ ਜਲ ਦਾ ਸੁਚੇਤ ਕਰਿ ਲੈ ਆਉ - old punjabi
V
ਜਲ ਦੇ ਕਟੋਰੇ ਨੂੰ ਸੁਚੇਤ ਕਰ ਕੇ ਲੈ ਆਉ - modern punjabi


ਜਪੁ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਰਸਨੀਂ ਕਰਿ ਉਚਾਰੁ - old punjabi, poem (ਉਚਾਰ ਕਰ ਕੇ  = ਉਚਾਰ ਕੇ)
V
ਜਪੁ ਜੀ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੂੰ ਰਸਨਾ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ ਉਚਾਰ ਕੇ (ਹਟੇ)  - modernpunjabi, sentence

Meaning remains the same either way -
ਜਪੁ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਰਸਨੀਂ ਕਰਿ ਉਚਾਰੁ | ਤਾਂ ਦੀਵਾਨ ਸਾਹਬ ਚੰਦ ਹਥ ਜੋੜ ਖਲੋਤਾ ਵਿਚ ਦਰਬਾਰ |
Then (Guru Sahib) recited the "Jap" and "Anand" (the prayers) out loud. Then Diwan Sahib Chand, who was standing in the court, with his hands folded,

ਕਹਿਆ ਗਰੀਬ ਨਿਵਾਜ਼ ਵਿਚ ਮਿੱਠਾ ਪਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਬਣੇ ਸੁਆਦ  |  ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਲੈ ਆਉ ਧਰਮ ਚੰਦ ਪਤਾਸੇ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦ |
requested "O Gareebniwaz (Guru Sahib), if there was sweetness then it would be tasty" . Then (Guru Sahib) said "Dharam Chand bring the Patashay Parshad (sugar chips).


So here's the modern punjabi version.
ਗੁਰੂ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੇ ਜਪੁ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਉਚਾਰ ਕੇ ਧਰਮ ਚੰਦ ਨੂੰ ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਕੇ ਪਤਾਸ਼ੇ ਲੈ ਆਉ |

ਗੁਰੂ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਨੇ ਜਪੁ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਉਚਾਰ ਕੇ, ਕਿਉਕਿ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਚੰਦ ਨੇ ਮਿੱਠਾ ਪਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਬੇਨਤੀ ਕੀਤੀ, ਧਰਮ ਚੰਦ ਨੂੰ ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਕੇ ਪਤਾਸ਼ੇ ਲੈ ਆਉ |

ਗੁਰੂ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਜਪੁ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਉਚਾਰ ਕੇ ਹਟੇ, ਤਾਂ ਸਾਹਿਬ ਚੰਦ ਨੇ ਮਿੱਠਾ ਪਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਬੇਨਤੀ ਕੀਤੀ, ਫੇਰ ਓਹ੍ਨਾਂ ਨੇ ਧਰਮ ਚੰਦ ਨੂੰ ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਕੇ ਪਤਾਸ਼ੇ ਲੈ ਆਉ |

Edited August 5, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[chatanga1]

 

Similarly, Guru ki Mahal were automatically wrongly stated as Khatri too.

Despite their various different backgrounds of Guru ki mahal like Mata Gujjar Kaur Ji (for example).

Some people think that the name "Gujri" was a reference to Mata Ji's caste, trying to make her a Gujjar. To me it's really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[chatanga1]

ਜਪੁ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੰਦੁ ਰਸਨੀਂ ਕਰਿ ਉਚਾਰੁ | ਤਾਂ ਦੀਵਾਨ ਸਾਹਬ ਚੰਦ ਹਥ ਜੋੜ ਖਲੋਤਾ ਵਿਚ ਦਰਬਾਰ |
Then (Guru Sahib) recited the "Jap" and "Anand" (the prayers) out loud. (Upon seeing this) Then Diwan Sahib Chand, who was standing in the court, with his hands folded,

ਕਹਿਆ ਗਰੀਬ ਨਿਵਾਜ਼ ਵਿਚ ਮਿੱਠਾ ਪਵੇ ਤਾਂ ਬਣੇ ਸੁਆਦ  |  ਬਚਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਲੈ ਆਉ ਧਰਮ ਚੰਦ ਪਤਾਸੇ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਦ |
requested "O Gareebniwaz (Guru Sahib), if there was sweetness then it would be tasty" . Then (Guru Sahib) said "Dharam Chand bring the Patashay Parshad (sugar chips).

It does seem to me that Guru Sahib is reciting the Bani, also from the viewpoint of the introduction of the characters (the Chibbers) it seems to follow logically that they were not part of the story until the next line, "Then Diwan Sahib Chand, who was standing in the court, with his hands folded,"

 

This make sense?

[BhagatSingh]

It does seem to me that Guru Sahib is reciting the Bani, also from the viewpoint of the introduction of the characters (the Chibbers) it seems to follow logically that they were not part of the story until the next line, "Then Diwan Sahib Chand, who was standing in the court, with his hands folded,"

 

This make sense?

Yea that's how I initially translated it, following the logical order of the story.
But Amardeep questioned the grammar.

 

...

Btw I updated my reply above. There's two ways to translating it and I think the second way is more accurate as Sahib Chand is not going to interrupt Guru Sahib in the middle of a prayer.

[amardeep]

Thanks for sharing. Great food for thought. I'll have to read up on some things this weekend.

Regarding siharis biharis etc - these are not consistent in old handwritten saroops and pothia. Do you know what the process was when they standardized various banis? If you look at the different Guru Granth Sahib saroops on Punjab Digital Library you'll see many different spellings.   These different spellings/scribal errors would obviosly ruin the grammar but also the rhythm and rhyme etc. I've wondered about this for some time - how and what was the process of standardization in print

 

Edited August 5, 2015 by amardeep

[BhagatSingh]

Thanks for sharing. Great food for thought. I'll have to read up on some things this weekend.

Regarding siharis biharis etc - these are not consistent in old handwritten saroops and pothia. Do you know what the process was when they standardized various banis? If you look at the different Guru Granth Sahib saroops on Punjab Digital Library you'll see many different spellings.   These different spellings/scribal errors would obviosly ruin the grammar but also the rhythm and rhyme etc. I've wondered about this for some time - how and what was the process of standardization in print

 

Sure. I haven't looked into myself so I am no expert but I assume it's consistent enough to carry the meaning across. There are many aspects of a bani that can help determine the meaning so they buffer the errors quite a bit.

Now different spellings is a slightly different matter because what is important is knowing the word and the pronunciation. The written spelling can vary and it would not effect the word one bit. E.g. -
ਦਸਰਥ ਜਸਰਥ
ਕਵਿ ਕਬਿ
Here pronunciation and meaning is the same but spelling is different.

And also when poetry is taken from a poet, who uttered it out loud, and it is written in to a book. There are errors in there too but the meaning is carried across. Sometimes it is changed on purpose but the meaning is maintained E.g. Dasam Pita changed ਖੁਲਾਸੇ to ਖਾਲਸੇ in Bhagat Kabir ji's bani, however the meaning is the same.

There are also errors due to transliteration from a different language. I talk about this in my Yog Sutr thread. So studying original texts can help fix these errors.

Last but not least, a buffer can come from someone who understands the field. The simplest example is perhaps a math textbook e.g. 2 + 2 = 5 - there's the error - but if you ask a mathematician, they can correct that error. Similarly, a yogi can correct errors in a yogic document, and so on.

I think significant errors (those that effect the meaning) are rare if they occur at all. If there are serious cases like that then I think it's worth discussing those in order to gain more insight into the nature of reproduction.

Edited August 5, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[Guest]

Panj Pyare were not all Khatri. It's just ridiculous for the author to claim that. Ram and Chand are not exclusive Khatri names. Only one was at most.

Gujjars are a tribe. Gujarati's and non-Punjabi castes are not Khatri's like the Kapoor's.

These false claims about Panj Pyare all being Khatri is a way to take away from the fact that the Khalsa Panth is for all and that the Panj Pyare were not so-called upper castes like the Hindu and Muslim soldiers.

 

[dalsingh101]

Panj Pyare were not all Khatri. It's just ridiculous for the author to claim that. Ram and Chand are not exclusive Khatri names. Only one was at most.

Gujjars are a tribe. Gujarati's and non-Punjabi castes are not Khatri's like the Kapoor's.

These false claims about Panj Pyare all being Khatri is a way to take away from the fact that the Khalsa Panth is for all and that the Panj Pyare were not so-called upper castes like the Hindu and Muslim soldiers.

 

The panj piaray all being Khatris is just one of Bhagat's crazy theories because he can't get his head around the fact that so-called 'lower-castes' can fight as good as 'warrior' <cough, cough> Khatris. Wouldn't take it too seriously myself. 

[BhagatSingh]

The panj piaray all being Khatris is just one of Bhagat's crazy theories because he can't get his head around the fact that so-called 'lower-castes' can fight as good as 'warrior' <cough, cough> Khatris. Wouldn't take it too seriously myself. 

I don't recall ever saying or implying that. I gave a very different reasoning.

But knowing you, I know you would definitely say that because you sub-consciously believe that yourself. <insert coughing here for "kamidi">   ;) 
 

Ram and Chand are not exclusive Khatri names.

Afaik they are. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
 

Gujjars are a tribe. Gujarati's and non-Punjabi castes are not Khatri's like the Kapoor's.

By khatri we just mean kshatriya.

 

These false claims about Panj Pyare all being Khatri is a way to take away from the fact that the Khalsa Panth is for all

Well if you think "Khalsa panth is for all" only rests on "the original panj pyare were not all khatri"
then I can see why you would get upset.

Two things
1. no one in this thread in trying to take that away - "Khalsa panth is for all".
2. this is a weak foundation - "the original panj pyare were not all khatri". There is a better foundation for "khalsa panth is for all" to be built upon, that is, knowledge of the atma.

 

upper castes like the Hindu and Muslim soldiers.

Are you saying soldiers can only be upper-caste?

Afaik, no army recruiter in there right mind would reject, on merit, lower caste soldiers if it meant having more soldiers, stronger force.

Edited August 6, 2015 by BhagatSingh

[Guest]

Panj Pyare were all shudra or ajlaf so-called lower castes according to the Hindu's and Muslims before they became Khalsa.

Ram and Chand are universally popular Hindu names with no exclusive connection to Kshatriya's. In Punjab most Ram's and Chand's are benefitting from SC reservations.

Hindu and Muslim soldiers were overwhelmingly from so-called upper castes. It was only the Khalsa Panth that these enemies feared as their worst nightmare (a so-called Shudra fauj).

How could Guru Gobind Singh ever be considered a Khatri when Mata Gujar Kaur were not Khatri + especially after Guru Sahib were given Amrit by the Panj Pyare.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dalsingh101]

By the time Guru Gobind Singh came along, the ability of Khatris to 'defend' India on their own was next to zero. A situation that remains true to this day.

Plus we already had the principle of egalitarianism in Sikhi - the Khalsa was obviously a logical conclusion.

 

What is the point of having a 'warrior class' that can't fight and prefers business anyway?

 

 

It's this inability to face up to our current weak state and falsely cling on to some legacy of the past, as if it is evidence of our strength, that makes so many Sikhs into delusional sheep in wolves clothing. 

 

Let's all face up to it. 

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2015 by dalsingh101

[Singh123456777]

Mata gujjar kaur is not a gujjar! That's like calling me khatri Singh and thinking I'm a khatri just because my name is khatri Singh.

[paapiman]

Mata gujjar kaur is not a gujjar! That's like calling me khatri Singh and thinking I'm a khatri just because my name is khatri Singh.

Mata jee belonged to Khatri (warrior) caste. I think, all wives of Satgurus were of Khatri caste.

Bhul chuk maaf

[chatanga1]

Mata gujjar kaur is not a gujjar! That's like calling me khatri Singh and thinking I'm a khatri just because my name is khatri Singh.

Exactly. I mean why would people think Im a goat if my name is Chatanga.

[dalsingh101]

Exactly. I mean why would people think Im a goat if my name is Chatanga.

megalol!

[Guest]

Gujjars are a scheduled caste tribe.

So why would anybody be called Mata Gujjar Kaur if not Gujjar and not from that tribe. Do Ojibwe call themselves Cree as a first name? No.

One of the Panj Piyare was Punjabi so might have been Khatri but the rest were definitely not Khatri (laaleh) nor Kshatriya but from Sudra varna's prior to them becoming the Panj Piyare Khalsa Panth

[Singh123456777]

Exactly. I mean why would people think Im a goat if my name is Chatanga.

hahahaha this wins the thread

[Singh123456777]

Mata jee belonged to Khatri (warrior) caste. I think, all wives of Satgurus were of Khatri caste.

Bhul chuk maaf

The gurus only married in their caste of khatri. So the wives are all khatris.

[paapiman]

The gurus only married in their caste of khatri. So the wives are all khatris.

Thanks paaji for confirming.

[Guest]

Guru Har Gobind Sahib Ji ki Mahal was not from a Khatri clan.

Mata Gujjar Kaur was not Khatri either.

Trehan + Bhalla were not originally thought of as Kshatriya clans (but thought of as Vaishya or Sat Shudra clans).

Only the brahministic and bhekhi Sikhs are desperate to continue the lie of so-called Khatri's only marrying Khatri's (so that they can justify their own desire to marry into their own caste)

[paapiman]

 

Trehan + Bhalla were not originally thought of as Kshatriya clans (but thought of as Vaishya or Sat Shudra clans).

Please provide evidence. All our Satgurus belonged to the high caste of warriors (Khatris/Kshatris).

bhul chuk maaf

[Guest]

^ that's what bahmans like yourself want the public to think.

First u make up these lies about Guru's wives all being Khatri

Now u even want to erase common knowledge about the Punj Pyara's

Guru Sahib proved that Bhai Lalo was higher than the high caste Muslim of his village

[Singh123456777]

^ that's what bahmans like yourself want the public to think.

First u make up these lies about Guru's wives all being Khatri

Now u even want to erase common knowledge about the Punj Pyara's

Guru Sahib proved that Bhai Lalo was higher than the high caste Muslim of his village

Provide evidence you moron that the gurus wives were not khatris. 

 

[Guest]

 

 

Now you expect us to believe the same lies that Mughals and Bahmans pushed against our Guru's in order to undermine Sikhi's hatred for the caste system

[paapiman]

Something needs to be done with regards to guest posts. Admins, please look into this.

Bhul chuk maaf